W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > July 2006

[Bug 3540] comments on guidelines (editorial)

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:20:27 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1G7dJT-0005SC-QC@wiggum.w3.org>


andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
         AssignedTo|andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com |carmelo@nist.gov

------- Comment #1 from andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com  2006-07-31 19:20 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> I started to make some comments in bug #3532 but that's probably the wrong
> place for editorial comments, so I opened another report.
> These comments are on the guidelines cvs version 1.22
> I think that the whole section "Customizing Namespaces" should be removed.
> All tests using schema import have now been removed from the minimal
> conformance section, and the tests that do use schema import, changing it to a
> namespace declaration will not produce the expected result.

Our thinking when we wrote this was that some XQuery implementations would
choose to augment their static context with the necessary schema definitions
and statically known namespaces, making the import schema clauses unnecessary.  

> Customizing XQueryX Tests The example XQueryX is not valid  xqx:external may
> not take content. (first reported in bug #2400)

I believe that you are suggesting that the example be rewritten as:



> in Comparing Results
> you say
>   Error: The expected result of the test case is and error, identified as an   
>  eight-character error code (e.g., XPST0003). The result of a test is true, if
> the implementation raises an error.
> apart from the typo "and error" which should read "an error" Am I correct to
> read this as saying that it is _not_ necessary to check that exactly the
> correct
> error code is produced. My current test harness checks the codes but classes
> the test as a pass anyway, adding a comment if the codes are different. I
> thought I was doing that incorrectly and was planning to classify these as
> failures but if it is OK to classify these as pass, that is good (for me).

You are doing this correctly. In section 2.3.2, Identifying and Reporting
Errors, XQuery says:

"The method by which an [XPath/XQuery] processor reports error information to
the external environment is implementation-defined."

We didn't feel that we could require implementations to return specific URIs to
identify specific errors.
Received on Monday, 31 July 2006 19:20:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:13 UTC